Although it has not (yet) reached the level of response caused by the Danish Muslim Cartoons, the Muslim world has reacted forcefully. In some cases, quite literally. Muslims in the Palestinian Territory attacked five churches in the West Bank and Gaza using guns and firebombs.

Update: Thanks to Carlson for the correction on the national origin of the cartoons.

Update2: Hospital-working Nun and her guard murdered by Muslim gunman in Somalia after arriving to help the sick and infirm.

Reactions:

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Email

Other Apps

Comments

Not to take anything away from your point, but the cartoons weren't Dutch but Danish. (You might of been also thinking of the Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, who was murdered for making a film critical of Islam.)

I decided to post comments again. I figure if I say something out of character it'll be obvious it wasn't me.

It's just ironic how some Muslims respond when criticized, even if the criticism is wrong. Let's say someone says, "the Muslim faith is a violent faith." How do some/many of them respond?...With violence. It just doesn't seem smart to respond this way to such a criticism at all. But this is what they repeatedly do.

I rather suspect they were responding with violence, not to the claim that Islam is a violent faith, but to the claim that Mohammed brought nothing new that was anything other than evil and inhuman.

People don't normally like to be called lying human equivalents of the ebola virus; and some cultures take being called a villain and liar more seriously than we do. (Especially when they think the people putting up the charges are themselves the lying, treacherous spiritual ebola virus spreaders. No one has tolerance for ebola. {s})

The ebola parallel is my own analogy (which, aside from my occasional use of it elsewhere on this topic, was especially suggested to me by the report of the nun's murder in Somalia).

And I expect Muslim audiences are discerning enough to tell when the person they have been taught must be believed to be speaking truth about God, on pain of unending hopeless torture, is called someone who only introduced evil and inhuman things as innovations (plagiarizing the rest, by implication)--by the modern leader of a group which has a worldwide reputation of having spent some significant effort in the past converting by force. (A topic that I don't recall seeing being brought up by the Pope in his speech, though possibly I missed it.)

The incompatibility of force and conversion, is cited _under_ that overarching category of 'Mohammed brought only evil and inhuman things'. "The Muslim audience" may not have been sophisticated enough to ignore the basic category and focus only on the example given from that category (as if the character of that example _wasn't_ supposed to have been given by the description of the overarching category); but I expect they were sophisticated enough to catch the irony of _this_ person saying such things.

They're taught that unless people believe certain things to be true, then unspeakably horrible hopelessly unending punishment is the result. In short, that anyone teaching anything contrary to Mohammed's witness, is spreading a spiritual equivalent of the ebola virus. _The_ chief religious leader (from their perspective) of the blasphemers against God and the prophet Jesus, thus a chief spreader of this spiritual ebola, has just announced (via an unqualified quote) that Mohammed only introduced evil novelties; taking as this chief's specific example something they believe his group to have commonly done in the past (if not still doing today).

The result really should not be surprising. They aren't violently mad because they were accused of being violent. They're violently mad because they're being accused of being Satanic-level traitors to God, when (according to the best light they can see) they're trying to serve God loyally--and the accusation is coming from the hypocritical leader of their worst enemies (as they see it).

Furthermore, if one of their clerics had said the same kind of thing, it would have been practically a call to get rid of the enemy: because _no one is tolerant of ebola_ (per my analogy. In their understanding, the nun coming to help the sick and infirm was bringing a horrible curse infinitely worse than any physical ailment. They stopped her from spreading an infection and condemning those sick and vulernable people to unending hopeless maximal suffering.)

So, they not unreasonably (from their grounds) figure the language might mean the same thing from Benedict (especially given RCC history).

Honestly, the response could have been (and might still could be) much _much_ worse.

You seem intent on holding the Pope accountable for actions taken hundreds of years prior and which were followed by years of reform. The Pope, I think, was addressing a present reality (though he has since said that the quoted passage did not reflect his own views). Were the crimes of Catholicism so bad in your mind that they can never voice a moral concern about a present day issue? I doubt that what has the Muslim world agitated is perceived hypocrisy. At least not if we learned anything about the cartoon riots.

There is a fundamental difference in values and outlook in the West, including the Catholic Church. Words almost never justify violence, here. Obviously that is not the case for much of the Islamic world, were insulting their prophet can justify the death sentence.

But I agree. It could get worse. But the moral blame for such an escalation would not be on the Pope, IMO.

{{Were the crimes of Catholicism so bad in your mind that they can never voice a moral concern about a present day issue? [...] You seem intent on holding the Pope accountable for actions taken hundreds of years prior and which were followed by years of reform.}}

Not really. In fact, I'm one of the least anti-Catholic non-Catholics around. {g} (I look forward with some amusement to the day when Joseph Pearce's literary heir decides to write a book arguring that I was either a secret Catholic or would have converted given a few more years or even converted on my deathbed... {wry g}) Apparently, my constant qualifiers of "as they see it" and "in their understanding", etc., meant that I must see things the same way they do??

So, no, I don't hold him accountable for actions taken hundreds of years prior and which were followed by years of reform. But it's important to understand that _these_ people are going to hold Benedict accountable for things his group has done in the past, and/or consider him a hypocrite for denouncing (via quote from a Christian Emperor) such a thing as _being evidence for the rejection of their tradition as evil and inhuman_. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if spreading the faith by force is to be taken as evidence that the advocator only introduced evil and inhuman things, then why didn't the Pope denounce his own tradition, too? It can only look like a convenient double standard to them.

The key point they're going to be pinging on, is the notion that Mohammed only introduced evil and inhuman things (implicitly only plagiarizing the rest of it.)

{{[The Pope] has since said that the quoted passage did not reflect his own views}}

I know. But his use of the passage in his address then becomes inexplicable. He introduces it as an aside from the outset; and could have made every other point in his speech without it (which speech I otherwise rather admired. {s!}) Even had he still chosen to reference the debate between that Emperor and the Persian scholar, he could have made the connection to the (false) dichotomy between faith and reason without making explicit use of the damning quote--and the quote does, in essence, damn Mohammed.

The question of whether the quote is a true description or not is even beside the point. (I can hardly blame the Emperor for saying that sort of thing, btw, when his city was being beseiged by Muslim expansionists right that very moment.) The point is that it should be no surprise that people who consider their escape from hopeless maximal unending torture to depend entirely on their faithfulness to God via Mohammed, are going to be provoked by a quote given by the religious leader of their traditionally greatest enemy, essentially damning Mohammed.

{{I doubt that what has the Muslim world agitated is perceived hypocrisy. At least not if we learned anything about the cartoon riots.}}

Of course they wouldn't consider _that_ to be hypocritical. Why would they consider a secular (private) publication of a secular state to be hypocritical in drawing a cartoon denouncing Mohammed as a 'bombhead' (so to speak)?? The circumstances are quite different--and far more potentially dangerous.

{{Words almost never justify violence, here.}}

They don't now; but that hasn't always been the case. And if that change indicates a "fundamental difference in values and outlook... including [in] the Catholic Church", then that's another way of saying that the Catholic Church does not have the doctrinal continuity it claims to represent and operate on. If the RCC is _fundamentally_ different now than it was back in the day, then the RCC is not what Benedict is claiming it to be as its chief executive officer (and final human legal arbiter). This isn't like in the Southern Baptist Conference, for instance, where unbroken unity of legitimate authority _isn't_ important to the legitimacy of authority claims of the group today (including interpretation of what Scripture means, and what should and should not be considered orthodox doctrine).

So, this is not a good way to defend Benedict from charges of hypocrisy. {s} It does, however, explain why he could not have drawn a parallel with his authoritative predecessors denouncing them on the same grounds as he (by unqualified quote) denounced Mohammed: he would either have had to admit the RCC lacks the doctrinal (and other historical) unities his church body claims to authoritatively possess; or else he would have had to admit that the tradition he _currently_ acts in representation of, is something that (on the same ground as his quoted denunciation of Mohammed) is also only an evil and inhuman innovation. Either way, he's painted himself into a logical corner.

And _he didn't have to do it_. He overshot the mark by trying to get that one portion into his speech, when it didn't have to be there. He could have spoken around it (or omitted the reference altogether), made exactly the same points he wanted to make in regard to his _main_ theme; and then if commentators (as they likely would have done) flushed up the damning comment from the Emperor, he could have replied that as Pope he would have been irresponsible to present that portion, plus that he didn't agree with the position as stated by that Emperor, etc.

But he wanted that portion in there; so he said it. If it didn't reprsesent his opinion as leader of the RCCs, he should have said so in the speech--though admittedly I don't know how he could have done that without gutting that portion of his point _once the damning clause was introduced_. (Ergo, he shouldn't have used it to begin with.)

{{[F]or much of the Islamic world... insulting their prophet can justify the death sentence.}}

Yes; and there are theological reasons for that, which I've discussed (and which you've dismissed, for whatever reason.) This is where the ebola parallel comes in, which you'd hardly call a parallel. In effect they're inoculating themselves, trying to inoculate other people, and otherwise acting to eliminate risk of infection (analogically speaking).

{{But the moral blame for such an escalation would not be on the Pope, IMO.}}

I'm not sure I'd call it a moral blame myself, either. But he didn't have to make that remark in his speech. Consequently, he's going to share the blame--he ought (in a logical sense, if not a moral one) to have known better.

Popular posts from this blog

We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles:This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible.We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD:John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and InfluenceDr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism.The Righteousness of God in the Pauline CorpusDr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the ApocalypseDr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book of Revelation. C…

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise.

For example, consider the following from the "talking points":

Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body.

What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need.This i…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

What is the genre of the Gospel of John and why does it matter? The latter question is easy to answer. It matters because “identification of a work’s genre helps us understand its place within the literary history . . . and aids us in its interpretation.” A.R. Cross, "Genres of the New Testament," in Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds. Craig Evans and Stanley E. Porter, page 402. When you pick up a contemporary book, you start with the knowledge that what you are reading is a romance, a science text book, a science fiction novel, a biography, or a book of history. That knowledge informs how you understand the text you are reading, such as reading how spaceship's propulsion system works in a scientific textbook or a Star Trek "technical manual". Or a scene of combat found in a historical novel or a biography of a medal of honor winner. Although these accounts may be described in similar ways, one you accept as true and the other you treat as fict…

One of the most interesting passages in Mark’s Passion Narrative, from a historiographical perspective, is Mark 15:21:

A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country and they forced him to carry the cross.First let us compare the passage to its parallels in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (it does not appear at all in the Gospel of John).

As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus.Luke 23:26.

As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross.Matt 27:32.

Matthew and Luke retain the reference to Simon as well as describe him as being from Cyrene, but drop the reference to Cyrene being “the father of Alexander and Rufus.”

It is notable that Mark identifies Simon by name. This is rare for Mark unless the author is referring to the disciples and some famil…

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

Richard H. Casdroph collected medical evidence, x-rays, angiograms, and other data from 10 cases associated with the Kathryn Kulhman ministry. Now it will of course strike skeptics as laughable to document the miracles of a faith healer. Ordinarily I myself tend to be highly skeptical of any televangelists. I am still skeptical of Kulhman because of her highly theatrical manner. But I always had the impression that there was actual documentation of her miracles and I guess that impression was created by the Casdorph book.

The Casdroph book goes into great detail on every case. Since these were not the actual patients of Casdroph himself, there are three tiers of medical data and opinion; Casdroph himself and his evaluation of the data, several doctors with whom he consulted on every case (and they vary from case to case), and the original doctors of the patients themselves. The patient…

Since the most prolific of my blogging partners, Layman, has been tied up at work (and looks to be for some time), I thought that in light of the Christmas season, I would repost two pieces that he wrote a couple of years ago about the Census in Luke 2 because we have an number of new readers who may never have read through his thoughts on this issue from two years ago. They are republished as originally written with only my correcting some typographical errors. Enjoy.

===============

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

Introducing the Issue

One of the more well-known criticisms of the Gospel of Luke’s infancy narratives is that it puts the census (also called a “registration”), that caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, at the wrong time. Most versions translate Luke 2:1 along the lines of the New Revised Standard Version:

Luke 2:2: This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.The problem is that the registration that oc…

In his paper "Must the Beginning of The Universe Have a Personal Cause?"[1]Wes Morriston quotes William Lane Craig making the augment that a personal origin is the only way to have an eternal cause with a temporal effect.[2] The rationale for that is merely an assertion that with an eternal cause working mechanically the effect would be eternal too,:If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to,create an effect in time.[3]Craig is using this argument to argue for the personal nature of God, If God was j…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.